updated 11:35 am EST, Wed March 22, 2006

Mactel WinXP benchmarks

The MacBook Pro Core Duo runs Adobe Photoshop faster than other laptops originally designed for Microsoft Windows, according to Benchmark tests of Windows XP running on PCS and other Intel-based Macs: "The MacBook Pro is the fastest Core Duo laptop we've tested running the Photoshop scripts. It's faster than other laptops originally designed for Windows. This bodes very well for the performance of an Intel-accelerated OS X Photoshop, when that finally appears." GearLog tested the performance of Windows XP on a Mac mini, an iMac, and a MacBook Pro, according to Macworld UK. Testers used a guide available from OnMac, discovering that each computer requires a different version of software to help the machines choose between operating systems on start-up. Although no video drivers yet exist for the dual-boot machines, testers found that once Windows was installed, it had no problem running at the full 1,680 x 1,050 resolution of the 20-inch screen. "We got Ethernet, wireless networking, and the headphone jack (but not the internal speakers, iSight or the remote) working using drivers suggested by OnMac," testers said.

I see...

I'm not interested...

...in seeing OS X on wintel boxes, that would be bad for Apple. XP or Vista on a Mac, however would sell a LOT more hardware for Apple, just because the hardware is generally superior to wintel's offerings, especially if there is an added performance boost as this article says. Both functionally and aesthetically.

from a user perspective..

...it means i don't have to keep a crappy PC laptop around for testing web sites and running specialized software like VAG-COM. and as zac said, it will sell alot more apple hardware, which is where apple really makes money.

This begs the question ..

Why does OpenGL and QuickTime run faster on new Lenovo ThinkPads then on MacBook Pros?

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/x60.ars/4

I really hope Apple will make the best systems and that Rosetta and VPC-whatever can lower all barriers to switchers and all, but the costs have to get down a bit more. I don't think Apple can continue to add the cost of iApp development onto the machines. Perhaps if Vista doesn't work well or if people see that they have to invest in upgrades on Wintel machines they may see a reason to switch to Macs, but if that doesn't happen, we will see Macs only improve in the minds of Mac people and geeks like these.

Not increasing hw sales

it will sell alot more apple hardware, which is where apple really makes money.

No, it won't. Because it is NOT, and won't be, a supported installation. So the only people buying macs to run windows (and there won't be many) will have to hack their computers or run special software to do it. Then hope someone has come out with drivers for all the hardware that Windows doesn't support in the machine, and for which Apple doesn't support either.

And while mac users are already trained that they should spend more money on their computers for the sake of spending more money, plus to get something that looks 'stylish' (ooh, it looks good, well worth the extra $300), Wintel users don't think that way. They're like normal people, concerned about overall costs. And being that they have alot more choices of hardware suppliers, they can get a PC that actually meets their needs, with features they want, and, just as important, not loaded with c*** they don't want.

rtbarry

I admit that it would be nice to have one notebook to handle VAG-COM; but it's really pointless if I have to restart to use it. For those who only want to use Windows, this is a viable solution for them. I know several, several gamers who will be all over this notebook once the graphics drivers are written for it.

Re: I'm not interested..

...in seeing OS X on wintel boxes, that would be bad for Apple.

Who cares if its bad for apple. Is it good for the consumers? Wouldn't running OS X on a PC box sell more copies of OS X? To me, being a proponent of one side of the argument (getting windows to run on a mac) should mean you support the other half (getting OS X to run on a wintel box). That way we can get cheaper hardware, more options/features, etc. And with more OS X sales, you could even see more support for OS X from hardware AND software vendors.

Allowing a mac to run windows would, if anything, give hardware/software vendors a reason NOT to support OS X (what, you want to run the latest Quickbooks on your Mac? No problem, just boot into windows and install that sucker!)

testudo

Um, you're smoking crack. We've already talked about having Apple as the ONLY hardware vendor and the Windows support team working on Windows builds for those systems. In our envionrment (like every other corporation around), the end users have little to no control over the OS itself. This machine is not only COST EFFECTIVE.. it's also exactly what they want in features and weight + screen size: in short, video drivers be damned, it'll run Excel better than the Dell and it makes the user happy and reduces contracts.

Re: WTF

Albert (and, I'm sure, others) want to know why anyone would want to run Windows on their Macs.

For me (besides the web development thing), I need it to run specialized software, for which there is no Mac-equivalent.

I am a court reporting student.

The software required to translate the output of a steno machine into English only runs on Windows-based software -- the cheapest of which costs ~$3900, the most expensive, ~$5,000.

There are no similar systems on the Mac (not since 1992, anyway).

For me, being able to run XP on my Mac means I can get rid of this silly Toshiba laptop I have ... and my fellow court reporting students can stop buying crappy laptops, and use their Mac laptops for taking down depositions, court proceedings, captions, webcasts, or assisting the hard of hearing with CART (Computer Aided Real Time, if I recall correctly) and using the internet -- without fear of losing everything to a virus (assuming they do their surfing on the Mac side of things).

I plan on buying myself a MacBook Pro just after the January Macworld; I suspect the new offerings will be a bit faster by then. I hope to be able to test my steno machine, six dictionaries, and CAT ("Computer Aided Translation") software on one of these modified systems soon!

Mac and PC Comparo

In order for a Windows machine to be as safe and stable as a Mac, you have to have a pristine installation that is fully protected from the "wild" Internet.

You could run Firefox, buy and install Symantec's AntiVirus software, buy and install Webroot's Spysweeper, and run active scans all the time. But then what do you have? A machine that is spending its CPU cycles protecting Windows from... itself.

I'd like to see how fast Photoshop's scripts run while all of that other software is scanning and sweeping...

I'd also like to see the price comparison between a fully protected Mac, which doesn't require subscriptions to those programs, and a fully protected Windows machine.

What happens when the Windows installation on the PC isn't "pristine" anymore? When you've installed some software and "tweaked" some settings? You get a machine that produces weird pauses and throws up strange error messages on your screen at the worst times. Then it's time to reinstall.

No thank you, I'll stick with my Mac and leave the PC worries to the folks in the IT group at the office who get paid for supporting them. No wonder they worship the ground that Bill Gates pisses on.

again, trolls...

XP on Apple hardware (and vice-versa, OS X on generics) is good for consumers, and maybe for apple as well.

if i can use only 1 portable computer, for all my tasks, how is that not a good thing??? i know this won't double apple's hardware sales, but it will likely increase it measurably. all of our geeks at work (who were formerly Windows/UNIX/Linux guys) have switched to Apple hardware - some before the Intel move, some after. there are enough savvy switchers out there to have a positive impact on Apple's hardware and software sales. and i am one of them. i will buy a macbook pro sooner, rather than later now. and more power users will keep switching.

Re: testudo

Um, you're smoking crack. We've already talked about having Apple as the ONLY hardware vendor and the Windows support team working on Windows builds for those systems. In our envionrment (like every other corporation around), the end users have little to no control over the OS itself. This machine is not only COST EFFECTIVE.. it's also exactly what they want in features and weight + screen size: in short, video drivers be damned, it'll run Excel better than the Dell and it makes the user happy and reduces contracts.

Must be nice to work at a company that doesn't care if, you have OS problems with your hardware, no one's going to say "Hey, how come your not calling the hardware vendor for a resolution".

Second, how do these things become cost-effective if you're running windows. I thought the whole "TCO" benefit on the mac was from the fact you didn't have virus issues, security problems, etc.

Third, if you're going all mac for hardware, why in the world are you sticking with windows support teams? Why not just have them convert their software for macs, then. That way, you can use OS X as well.

Fourth, when you say it has the features your users want, I'm assuming none of those features are the built-in speakers, video camera, video drivers that actually make windows work faster (yes, just like on the mac, better video drivers/cards, the faster the OS responds), etc, etc, etc.

Re: mac and PC comparo

In order for a Windows machine to be as safe and stable as a Mac, you have to have a pristine installation that is fully protected from the "wild" Internet.

You could run Firefox, buy and install Symantec's AntiVirus software, buy and install Webroot's Spysweeper, and run active scans all the time. But then what do you have? A machine that is spending its CPU cycles protecting Windows from... itself.

Actually, that's nice and all, but completely wrong. You want to protect yourself on a PC, its generally simple.

1) Turn on AutoUpdate to get security patches as they're released.

2) Turn on the firewall. This cuts down your vulnerability to scanning viruses nearly completley.

3) Install virus software to scan all that email and docs you get, because that's how most of them are delivered, anyway. However, DO NOT install Symantec's crappy software. It'll cause more issues then save you (hey, just like the mac version).

4) Run Firefox.

That's it. If you're not using IE, there's no need for scanning for malware/spyware (unless you have a penchant for downloading c*** from the internet, but, if you're doing that, you're not trying to be computer-safe anyway).

The PCs we have in the office have not been infected by a virus in at least 10 years. We don't have malware issues. We don't have an open connection to the internet.

And, you know, the above is the exact same thing you should do on your mac (with the exception of running firefox, safari is fine).

Re: testudo's fantadsy

Ha! That's not what I said. I said I'd like to see OS X running on PC hardware. I didn't say Apple had to support it.

June 2007 - Apple announces $100 million loss due to Mac hardware sales tanking. Mac OS X for PC sales poor due to rampant piracy and mounting technical support costs.

How does Apple face rampant piracy then, but not now? Don't you think they lose a lot on software sales because everyone's stealing 10.4 as it is? So how would this be new.

On top of that, all they'd have to do is serial number their software, and there goes the rampant support costs. All those pirates aren't getting support (I'm assuming that's where you were saying the cost was coming from).

But, most important, what lost hardware sales? Everyone else here seems to think that Macs that can run windows will only boost Apple's hardware sales, because their hardware is the best-damn-coolest hardware around, and everyone will flock to it. And that's to run windows. What, now everyone's just going to flock to dell hardware? Sounds like someone's not drinking the kool-aid.

Jan 7, 2008 - SJ announces that Apple will become a software only company in repeat of NeXT computer, renamed Apple Soft, sells Mac hardware division to Dell Computer.

Actually this has been mentioned and speculated about many times. The argument is that software sales are easier to make money on then hardware. And its not exactly like Apple's hardware is anything to write home about. Its as flaky and buggy as any of the major PC makers.

Oh, and why would Dell want the hardware division? They already have a hardware division. They might want the design crew, but they have no need for any assembly c***.

June 2008 - SJ resigns from Apple Soft and accepts position as Disney CEO.

Please. You really think its going to take him 2 years to get the CEO job? And why would he have to resign? He was CEO of pixar and apple at the same time.

Jan 2009 - Apple Soft sold to Sun Microsystems. Macworld Expo cancelled.
Well, most people don't really care about Macworld expo, so we don't care if it were cancelled or not. MacWorld attracts some 60,000 people, if they're lucky. There's supposedly millions of apple users. What's the big deal? Especially if Jobs isn't giving one of his speeches.

And you make the assumption that Sun is still around in a couple of years. That's a fantasy if I ever heard it...

Re: testudo's fantasy

OSX controls fans

I really hope all those people putting Windows on their Macs do not fry their Macs and then blame Apple. I say this because I believe Macs' internal colling fans are controlled by the OS. In other words, the Windows OS is not going to tell a Mac's cooling fan to turn on. That could be very bad.

don't use Windows

Well I have had no viruses, spyware, or malware on my machine and all I have done nothing for security. But of course I have a Mac. I also don't have to worry about what I download from the Internet and I could use the included browser that comes with Mac OS 10.3 and higher and still not get any malware. So yes the Mac does reduce my time spent on maintaining my machine. I have also done a major OS upgrade from 10.2 - 10.3 and had no issue at all. I must have had to install Windows every few months when I had a PC. You know that a virus program is not a proactive security measure but just a clean up after the fact. You have to wait for the virus to be in the wild for a while first and be infecting machines - maybe yours - before they come up with the fix, then you need to download it and pay money for this capability and then scan everything, hoping of course it is not hidden by a root kit or some other common way to hide the virus from the anti virus software assuming of course that the anti-virus software works flawlessly everytime. Then when you find a virus yopu want to verify that all your software doesn't have viruses in it and reinstall from scratch because just deleting the virus you find may not be good enough. Then you need to verify every piece of data you have on the machine and make sure it is all there and nothing was modified. Basically if you care about your data, you don't use Windows or MS Office. Then of course you can run into problems how Windows corrupts software or how you can lose data when you run defraging software if there is a power outage - another thing not necessary on a Mac or any other form of UNIX.

Albert, Albert...

Albert, just a word about where Mac users are coming from, or this Mac user anyway.

1) I do *work* and any tool that lets me do that work faster is worth money in the bank to me. My quad G5 pays for itself every day because I get more done and have less downsides than I would with an "Intel box" (nevermind that Apples are now also Intel boxes...). If you are a guy sitting around playing games or whatever, yes, the extra price of Mac might not be appreciated. If you are earning money in any form though, the Mac will perform better than a PC.

2) I want to run Windows on my Macs for various reasons, including that I publish PC software (yes, I have 20+ Macs and 2 PCs to accomplish this currently). Obviously, if I could do my testing on a Macbook or whatever, that's good.

3) Joe College Dorm, Joe Guy who Takes Software from Work, and Joe Father who has Kids who want to Play Games, will all appreciate the extra options Mac booting Windows brings.

Let's be real

I'm an interactive designer: I use a quad G5 at work and a four year old Athlon 2100 at home. I use and like both OS'.

I like Windows because frankly I feel like I can do more. This feeling is slowly changing as the open source community embraces OS X. I also think (and I use all the shortcuts on both systems) Windows is faster to navigate... copy files, etc.

I like OS X because it is beautiful, clean, and solid feeling. And no spyware/low virus vulnerability - that's a big plus.

I'm about to get a new Duo Core laptop and will go with a Dell because the 17" MacBook isn't out. So a pre-cursor here is that I would prefer a MacBook.

But let's be real - those of you who actually know and use both systems - Photoshop, or almost any multimedia will be slower on a Mac, even my quad at work. The Mac's a beautiful experience, and the horsepower is getting alot closer, but there's no way you can tell me Photoshop moreover Flash will run faster under OSX than on Windows without giving me all the stats on the drivers you're using. Use hardware and drivers appropriate for both OS', then do a benchmark. I'm afraid those of you h***-bent on defending Macs will find yourselves surprised. If not, well then consider me a full-on convert.